The classification of projects was done without requesting input from the state transportation agencies. This was done because the definition of economic development varies from State to State. In fact, some States don't have a formal economic development program. The principal program official for the NCPD/CBI did the classification based on documents submitted with allocation requests, other documents, and information from websites that mention the project in question and other information available. The classification represents which of the two purposes is more important to the project advocates. For example, the FAST project in Washington State is obviously intended to improve safety, reduce congestion and help the local economy. However, because there are existing safety and congestion problems, the FHWA considers that safety and congestion mitigation was more important than economic development. In the future I-69 project, project completion would bring a safety benefit by drawing traffic from existing two-lane undivided highways and placing this traffic on four-lane divided highways. However, websites advocating future I-69 tends to emphasize the economic development aspect of the project more than safety aspects of the project.

Additional Notes

Various advocacy groups and organizations refer to the NCPD/CBI program by various names including: the borders/corridors program, the corridors to borders program and the CORBOR program.

The Chapter on the history of the NCPD/CBI in the first section entitled from ISTEA through 1997 discusses two Congressional reports. HEPI (the program office responsible for administering the NCPD/CBI) did not substantively participate in the development of either report. HEPI has attempted to determine if these reports were formally submitted to Congress but has not been able to make such a determination. However, HEPI believes that Congress required the second report based on Congress having either an official or unofficial version of the first report.

The last paragraph of the Chapter on Feedback on the Programs refers to site visits. A summary of all site visits follows:

Project(s)

Reason for visit and some findings

Multimodal trade corridor study of the I-5 corridor between Portland (OR) and Vancouver (WA) and vicinity from I-84 in Oregon to I-205 in Washington. FY 1999 award for $2,000,000

For some time after project obligation the rate of expenditure was unexpected slow. Verified that there was a valid reason for it.

Construction of a number of highway-rail grade separations and port access projects on the Freight Action Strategy (FAST) Corridor from Everett (WA) to Tacoma (WA). FY 1999 award for $10,000,000. Awards were also made in other years.

Invited by project sponsors and was already in WA for workshop. This was one of the highest awards in FY 1999 and also received funding in later years. Verified the importance of the project for the regional transportation system and the level of local support for it.

Construction of freeway overpasses and connectors in Laredo on Farm to Market (FM) 3464 from I-35 to the new border crossing. FY 1999 award for about $6,000,000.

Invited by project sponsors and was in south Texas on a separate contract. Verified that the project has been an outstanding success.

US 219 and several projects in Niagara County, NY with awards totaling about $8,000,000 in FY 1999 and FY 2000.

New York requested approval to move funds between projects. Verified that there was a strong public benefit in approving the State's request. Also verified the success of one component of the projects.

Various projects, mostly bridge projects, in the El Paso area, including projects in both Texas and New Mexico. FY 1999, FY 2000 and FY 2001 awards totaled about $8,000,000.

Complex project involving GSA and coordination of several bridges and POEs between the US and Mexico. Many projects within a small geographical area. Determined that a simplified "performance" evaluation will not be possible on the bridge projects.